Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,
http://www.venganza.org/

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

Hail, Hail Rock and Roll!!!

THE ROLLING STONES accuse US President GEORGE W BUSH of being “full of sh*t” on their new album.

The track ‘Sweet Neo Con’, one of the tracks on the forthcoming ‘A Bigger Bang’, was already known to be fiercely anti-Bush.

However, frontman Mick Jagger’s disdain for the American leader has now been confirmed, with Rolling Stones singer revealing some of the lyrics in an interview with Newsweek.

But the singer has revealed that guitarist Keith Richards, who lives in the US, is a bit worried about the direct nature of the words.

An extract from ‘Sweet Neo Con’ features the following lines: “You call yourself a Christian, I call you u a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot, well I think you’re full of sh*t.”

Jagger said of the track: “It is direct. Keith said: ‘It’s not really metaphorical.’

“I think he’s a bit worried because he lives in the US. But I don’t.”

As a resident of Florida and political Progressive, I am of course frequently embarrassed by what goes on in this “Land of 1000 Election Crimes.” This week, however, the Florida Dems exhibit at least some of the gumption they have so famously lacked, albeit with nothing other than a sidebar. At their site they’ve got a collection of direct quotes from Repugs who, remember, just hated Clinton’s commitment of troops to NATO’s peacekeeping attempts in Bosnia. Geez, at least he and his buddies weren’t making money off that campaign. Nope, just trying to stop a genocide.

Below is the full catalogue of juicy, damning quotes. Notice what a busy boy Tom Delay was, trying to steer a Bandwagon of Restraint and Concern. (This same bandwagon, by the way, was driven into a ditch in Sugarland, Texas, and left there to rot, early in the morning of January 20, 2001.)

“You can support the troops but not the president.” -
Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“[The] president is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.” -
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.” -
Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.” -
Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.” -
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.” -
Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The president began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the president started this thing, and there still is no plan today.” -
Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life.” -
Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” -
Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.” -
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.” -
Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

How does a rumor get started? These days, it’s the Internet. From the Christian Coalition blog:

Liberals threaten to filibuster Roberts
As expected, liberal members of the US Senate are threatening to filibuster Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court - especially if they don’t get the answers they want on issues such as abortion. (h/t Confirm Them) Aren’t these the same folks who said there shouldn’t be a “litmus” test for judges?? Just curious.

Follow that link to “Confirm Them,” “a project of RedState.org,” and you find this gem:

Senators Boxer and Cantwell say that Judge Roberts must not only disclose how he would have voted in the 5-4 Casey decision in 1992 (modifying but not overturning Roe v. Wade), but additionally Roberts must also support that decision in order to get their votes.

Previously, Boxer threatened a filibuster if Roberts refuses to oblige regarding this issue. Likewise, Senator Durbin also threatened a filibuster if Judge Roberts disagrees with Durbin about another case.

Follow those links, and you get this:

Associated Press reports:

Boxer called a threat to legalized abortion an “extraordinary circumstance.” “It means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die. So all options are on the table,” she said.

That is baloney. First of all […]

and this:

Curry’s MSNBC article also includes this unfortunate quote from Senator Durbin of Illinois:

“If they don’t respect the Griswold decision, as far as I am concerned they should be filibustered,” Durbin said.

So here we go again with the filibusters. […]

What’s the problem? Well, the Boxer quote was from July 5, and the Durbin quote was from June 9 – long before Roberts was even nominated. They weren’t talking about Roberts at all – just some hypothetical raging ideologue. (It remains to be seen whether Roberts really is one.)

I guess they were short on filibuster threats, so they decided to dig some up from the vault. Meanwhile, after Roberts’ nomination approximately no one in the Senate has threatened a filibuster. Several “Gang of 14″ Democrats felt obligated to emphasize their lack of threat.

“This is a credible nominee, and not one that – as far as we know now – has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said Bush had “made a wise choice.” Asked whether a filibuster was likely, Nelson said: “I think it’s fair to say I don’t see anything coming out right now.”

“My sense is so far, so good,” summed up Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. (7/21)

U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd says he feels a kindred spirit in Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, who shares Byrd’s interests in the Constitution, Cicero and John Marshall.

“I was favorably impressed,” Byrd told reporters after meeting Roberts. “I like him.” (8/2)

It’s like the old game “telephone,” where one kid whispers to another, who whispers the message to the next, and so on — until the message is utter nonsense.

Here, the message was apparently that some Democrats are asking questions about Roberts. Not too exciting, but take some pre-nomination positioning, give the links tasty names, and next thing you know you have a headline — “Liberals threaten to filibuster Roberts” — completely opposed to reality.

I wonder where we’ll see it show up next?

I arrived at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court at 9 pm on the night of Tuesday July 19, as President Bush was in mid-speech nominating John G. Roberts to Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the Court. I was invited by an organization carrying the deceptively secular name National Pro-Life Action Center. Expecting a press conference, for that is how it was billed, instead I witnessed a prayer meeting.

The group of maybe fifty souls, at least half under the age of twenty-five (evangelicals seem to have large families and take them to rallies en masse), was circled around the sound system, listening intently to the President and then Roberts speak. I was perplexed by a middle-aged man next to me, hunched over and rocking back and forth with his eyes closed–then I realized he was praying. He wasn’t the only one. The crowd seemed to be experiencing this political event as a deeply spiritual moment.

The press conference was barely differentiated from the kneeling prayer vigil beforehand or the candlelight vigil afterwards. There was a podium, but it was treated as a pulpit. All of the seven speakers, three of them clergymen, invoked God. All were certain that He had intervened in Bush’s thought process on behalf of the unborn.

They had dodged a narrow bullet. The second speaker, Rev. Rob Schenck, President of the National Clergy Council, opened by declaring

President Bush has shown extraordinary moral courage in bringing forth John G. Roberts as his nominee for appointment to the United States Supreme Court. I would like to say that we had no moments of doubt, but that would not be true.

This was a startling admission, it seemed to me, because the later speakers were almost unanimous in asserting that Roberts’ nomination was evidence that God had heard their prayers. What if Bush had nominated the soft-on-abortion Alberto Gonzales? Would they have doubted their faith in God? I suspect that when Bush pleases them they see an affirmation of their faith in God, but when Bush disappoints them they only question their faith in Bush.

Later, I questioned Rev. Schenck’s fresh-faced assistant, on the Clergy Council. What about a woman who would die carrying a fetus to term? “We would hope that it would be the best outcome in God’s sight.” In other words, if she dies it’s God’s will and who are we mere mortals to intervene? God’s will was invoked many times that evening and all the speakers presumed to know what it is. But it left me wondering, if it’s in God’s power to end abortion, why hasn’t he done it yet? Does God have to wait for a vacancy on the Supreme Court for his will to be done?

A young woman, sporting blond pigtails and fingering a Bible, and hailing from a nebulous organization called simply The Cause spoke after Rev. Schenck. She opened with a psalm, and she concluded her speech saying:

Our government is in a transitional moment where we have shifting going on but we believe it’s because of the prayers of the saints. We believe that God answers the cries of the righteous and he is quick to act justly on their behalf. So begin to cry out to god. For righteousness and justice to roll down from our government for righteousness and justice to roll down from this seat that John Roberts has now been placed in. Cry out for justice and righteousness in the Senate that the committees would confirm him quickly and that they would do justly in the sight of the Lord.

She listed justice and righteousness as if they were inseparable. This told me a lot about the thinking of the Christian Right. A secular jurist, whatever his position on Roe v. Wade, makes a distinction between justice and righteousness. The former is a legal consideration, the latter a religious one. The two are logically separable, and that is all the more so in the cases under the Supreme Court’s purview, which determine the constitutionality of a law, not its justness (much less its righteousness). But to this group the federal government’s fealty ought not to be to the constitution, but rather to God. Their mission is not to do what the constitution says, but to “do justly in the sight of the Lord.” To me a judiciary that makes its decisions on its own interpretation of God’s will sounds like an activist judiciary–but apparently not to another speaker, Patrick Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition. He declared “It is our hope and our prayer that judicial activism will come to an end. And that judges will not legislate from the bench.”

“There’s a 22 word prayer that we pray every day in front of this court five times a day at least. said a young man, named Brian Kim, who has also been holding vigil at the Court since thirty days before the 2004 election. And as he began the whole crowd joined in: “Jesus we plead your blood over my sins and the sins of my nation. God end abortion and send revival to America.” This left me more confused. They stand before the court to ask God for a favor. Isn’t that what a church is for? Wouldn’t one stand before the Court when asking them for a favor? Never before had I realized the degree to which the religious right seeks to bring religious power to bear on civil institutions.

Tuesday was an object lesson in what the left is up against. No one I know hold’s his or her commitment to secular liberal values with the fervor and intensity that this crowd held their commitment to Christian values. NARAL instantly denounced John Roberts, but where were their activists? In addition to the rally there was an unrelated band of youngsters from Progress for America, the conservative 501c4, holding up placards urging swift confirmation for the benefit of the television cameras shooting generic footage of the Court. Off to the side stood one lonely crank with a homemade drawing of a coat-hanger.

Joe Queenan is very funny. Some of you may have seen his pieces on HBO’s “Inside the NFL” last season. He’s also the author of the groundbreaking Dan Quayle biography, “Imperial Caddy". I’m one of the estimated 8 people that has seen his, “12 Steps to Death.” Queenan boasts that this is the cheapest film ever made.

In Sunday’s NY Times Book Review, Queenan myrthfully rips at Edward Klein’s Hillary hatchet job, pointing to the book’s not-so-obvious failure:

What I am saying is that if Klein purposely set out to write the sleaziest, most derivative, most despicable political biography ever, he has failed both himself and his readers miserably. ‘’The Truth About Hillary'’ is only about the 16th sleaziest book I have ever read. Though, in fairness to the author, reading creepy, cut-and-paste books is my hobby.

Granted, it is a very bad book. Granted, it is a lazy, cut-and-paste recycling of other people’s work. Granted, it relies too much on nasty personal comments about Senator Clinton provided by anonymous sources. Granted, it sleazily intimates that Hillary Clinton is a lying, scheming, smelly, left-leaning lesbian and a non-maternal parent who consorts with lawyers who defend mobbed-up unions and bears a striking character resemblance to both Richard Nixon and Madonna, and who tacitly approved of her husband’s rape of a young woman at a time when Mrs. Clinton may or may not have been bathing, washing her hair or shaving her underarms, while hanging out with short-haired women from the sapphic charnel house Wellesley College.

The reveiw is a fun read.